BUT, can you definitively give the focal length and aperture of RLPhotos' three images?

Assuming little or no cropping, I'm guessing the dog was shot with a 85@4.0 or something along those lines, maybe shorter. The ratio of very large nose to tiny eyes means it was a relatively short lens to get that perspective. The apeture had to be smaller to create enough DOF to keep the nose and eyes both in focus since the dog has a long snout. It will be interesting to see what the actual setup was.

Nope all these images are shot @ f/2. The trick is proper technique to get what you want in focus. If you can't tell between f/2.8 and f/2, bah you might as well shoot f/4 lenses because you won't be able to tell the difference either.

BUT, can you definitively give the focal length and aperture of RLPhotos' three images?

Assuming little or no cropping, I'm guessing the dog was shot with a 85@4.0 or something along those lines, maybe shorter. The ratio of very large nose to tiny eyes means it was a relatively short lens to get that perspective. The apeture had to be smaller to create enough DOF to keep the nose and eyes both in focus since the dog has a long snout. It will be interesting to see what the actual setup was.

Nope all these images are shot @ f/2. The trick is proper technique to get what you want in focus. If you can't tell between f/2.8 and f/2, bah you might as well shoot f/4 lenses because you won't be able to tell the difference either.

Then by all means educate us. Tell us how you were able to so distort the face of the dog and make such a massive nose and such small eyes so close together and yet maintain that DOF. We people you can't tell the difference and don't know proper technique want to know how to create these beady eyes and a huge nose peering thru a fog of blurred fur!

BUT, can you definitively give the focal length and aperture of RLPhotos' three images?

Assuming little or no cropping, I'm guessing the dog was shot with a 85@4.0 or something along those lines, maybe shorter. The ratio of very large nose to tiny eyes means it was a relatively short lens to get that perspective. The apeture had to be smaller to create enough DOF to keep the nose and eyes both in focus since the dog has a long snout. It will be interesting to see what the actual setup was.

Nope all these images are shot @ f/2. The trick is proper technique to get what you want in focus. If you can't tell between f/2.8 and f/2, bah you might as well shoot f/4 lenses because you won't be able to tell the difference either.

Then by all means educate us. Tell us how you were able to so distort the face of the dog and make such a massive nose and such small eyes so close together and yet maintain that DOF. We people you can't tell the difference and don't know proper technique want to know how to create these beady eyes and a huge nose peering thru a fog of blurred fur!

It's called a higher angle in which you tilt the camera down slight to move the plane of focus just enough to get both eyes in focus @ f/2.

Geez, do you guys actually go out and shoot? Its feels like I'm talking to some test chart shooter here.

My concern with the 100L macro for my intended use is that I've heard it is soft beyond 10-15 feet

This had my curiosity and after shooting new portraits yesterday and looking closer at older shots I must say:

Well, f*ck.

I shot two full body portraits from a distance of about 3 meters. They both show not "softness" but something that looks like slight movement or when you can't hold the camera steady in your hands:

I then crammed in my archives and found other shots taken in distance, here is a portrait that was heavily edited of course but you also can see it was not sharp in the first place

And in a winter shot this also applies

These are 100% crops.

This pulls my opinion on that lens down so much right now I think about selling it for a 135L.

I did some extensive testing of my 100L and discovered that it has mechanical issues in the focus mechanism. It produced similar results to what you are showing, but only did that part of the time. I tested another copy and it did not have the issue. I sent mine to Canon but haven't received it back yet...we'll see and I'll comment when I test it out. But given that, if OP goes for the 100L I'd definitely test it upon arrival or just go for the 135 instead.

BUT, can you definitively give the focal length and aperture of RLPhotos' three images?

Assuming little or no cropping, I'm guessing the dog was shot with a 85@4.0 or something along those lines, maybe shorter. The ratio of very large nose to tiny eyes means it was a relatively short lens to get that perspective. The apeture had to be smaller to create enough DOF to keep the nose and eyes both in focus since the dog has a long snout. It will be interesting to see what the actual setup was.

Nope all these images are shot @ f/2. The trick is proper technique to get what you want in focus. If you can't tell between f/2.8 and f/2, bah you might as well shoot f/4 lenses because you won't be able to tell the difference either.

Then by all means educate us. Tell us how you were able to so distort the face of the dog and make such a massive nose and such small eyes so close together and yet maintain that DOF. We people you can't tell the difference and don't know proper technique want to know how to create these beady eyes and a huge nose peering thru a fog of blurred fur!

It's called a higher angle in which you tilt the camera down slight to move the plane of focus just enough to get both eyes in focus @ f/2.

Geez, do you guys actually go out and shoot? Its feels like I'm talking to some test chart shooter here.

That doesn't explain the distorted perspective of the huge nose and small close together eyes. To my knowlege, only a relatively short lens and close subject distance creates this "peep hole" type of perspective.

On such a dog, the nose to eyes distance is prabably 6 inches. So I for one would like to know which focal length and subject distance can create the DOF needed to keep both eyes and nose relatively in focus while at the same time skewing the proportions of the dogs face that way.

BUT, can you definitively give the focal length and aperture of RLPhotos' three images?

Assuming little or no cropping, I'm guessing the dog was shot with a 85@4.0 or something along those lines, maybe shorter. The ratio of very large nose to tiny eyes means it was a relatively short lens to get that perspective. The apeture had to be smaller to create enough DOF to keep the nose and eyes both in focus since the dog has a long snout. It will be interesting to see what the actual setup was.

Nope all these images are shot @ f/2. The trick is proper technique to get what you want in focus. If you can't tell between f/2.8 and f/2, bah you might as well shoot f/4 lenses because you won't be able to tell the difference either.

Then by all means educate us. Tell us how you were able to so distort the face of the dog and make such a massive nose and such small eyes so close together and yet maintain that DOF. We people you can't tell the difference and don't know proper technique want to know how to create these beady eyes and a huge nose peering thru a fog of blurred fur!

It's called a higher angle in which you tilt the camera down slight to move the plane of focus just enough to get both eyes in focus @ f/2.

Geez, do you guys actually go out and shoot? Its feels like I'm talking to some test chart shooter here.

That doesn't explain the distorted perspective of the huge nose and small close together eyes. To my knowlege, only a relatively short lens and close subject distance creates this "peep hole" type of perspective.

On such a dog, the nose to eyes distance is prabably 6 inches. So I for one would like to know which focal length and subject distance can create the DOF needed to keep both eyes and nose relatively in focus while at the same time skewing the proportions of the dogs face that way.

BUT, can you definitively give the focal length and aperture of RLPhotos' three images?

Assuming little or no cropping, I'm guessing the dog was shot with a 85@4.0 or something along those lines, maybe shorter. The ratio of very large nose to tiny eyes means it was a relatively short lens to get that perspective. The apeture had to be smaller to create enough DOF to keep the nose and eyes both in focus since the dog has a long snout. It will be interesting to see what the actual setup was.

Nope all these images are shot @ f/2. The trick is proper technique to get what you want in focus. If you can't tell between f/2.8 and f/2, bah you might as well shoot f/4 lenses because you won't be able to tell the difference either.

Then by all means educate us. Tell us how you were able to so distort the face of the dog and make such a massive nose and such small eyes so close together and yet maintain that DOF. We people you can't tell the difference and don't know proper technique want to know how to create these beady eyes and a huge nose peering thru a fog of blurred fur!

It's called a higher angle in which you tilt the camera down slight to move the plane of focus just enough to get both eyes in focus @ f/2.

Geez, do you guys actually go out and shoot? Its feels like I'm talking to some test chart shooter here.

That doesn't explain the distorted perspective of the huge nose and small close together eyes. To my knowlege, only a relatively short lens and close subject distance creates this "peep hole" type of perspective.

On such a dog, the nose to eyes distance is prabably 6 inches. So I for one would like to know which focal length and subject distance can create the DOF needed to keep both eyes and nose relatively in focus while at the same time skewing the proportions of the dogs face that way.

OK, so now we know you are a democrat.

But I still don't know how you distorted the dogs face proprtions that way and yet kept both his eyes and his nose in relative focus. Hey, I'm just an average snap-shooting hack with more gear than I need, but always willing to learn something new. Maybe just provide the EXIF like everybody else does? That way you won't be troubled with all these questions. If doing that to a dog is your trade secret and you don't want to share the recipe, I suppose I understand.

My concern with the 100L macro for my intended use is that I've heard it is soft beyond 10-15 feet

This had my curiosity and after shooting new portraits yesterday and looking closer at older shots I must say:

Well, f*ck.

I shot two full body portraits from a distance of about 3 meters. They both show not "softness" but something that looks like slight movement or when you can't hold the camera steady in your hands:

I then crammed in my archives and found other shots taken in distance, here is a portrait that was heavily edited of course but you also can see it was not sharp in the first place

And in a winter shot this also applies

These are 100% crops.

This pulls my opinion on that lens down so much right now I think about selling it for a 135L.

I did some extensive testing of my 100L and discovered that it has mechanical issues in the focus mechanism. It produced similar results to what you are showing, but only did that part of the time. I tested another copy and it did not have the issue. I sent mine to Canon but haven't received it back yet...we'll see and I'll comment when I test it out. But given that, if OP goes for the 100L I'd definitely test it upon arrival or just go for the 135 instead.

Well I calmed down a bit now, the 100L has always been my favourite lens but I highly desired the 135L also. So I decided to finally get the 135L. That will probably eradicate the use of my 100L for portrait work but it's still great for macro and product photography.

But I still don't know how you distorted the dogs face proprtions that way and yet kept both his eyes and his nose in relative focus. Hey, I'm just an average snap-shooting hack with more gear than I need, but always willing to learn something new. Maybe just provide the EXIF like everybody else does? That way you won't be troubled with all these questions. If doing that to a dog is your trade secret and you don't want to share the recipe, I suppose I understand.

If you look at the snout between the eyes and the nose, you'll see that it's not in sharp focus. That tells you where the focal plane lies.

Either the shot was taken with a lens with movements or the eyes and the tip of the nose are parallel to the film sensor plane.

Now, imagine either the dog tilting his nose down or the photographer standing above him (or some combination of the two), enough to shoot the photo not straight on from the front, but from the top of the head.

Edit 2: I don't know why this particular image is causing issues for you to understand. The 135L is mearly compressing the dogs nose to make it seem closer to the eyes. Thats where the 135L also shines better than the 100L, 35% more compression.

If you look at the snout between the eyes and the nose, you'll see that it's not in sharp focus. That tells you where the focal plane lies.

Either the shot was taken with a lens with movements or the eyes and the tip of the nose are parallel to the film sensor plane.

Now, imagine either the dog tilting his nose down or the photographer standing above him (or some combination of the two), enough to shoot the photo not straight on from the front, but from the top of the head.

Cheers,

b&

I know the anatomy of such a dog and I understand shooting where both the nose and the eyes are in the focal plane, but it still doesn't add up to such a skewed "peep-hole" perspective to me. And given the dog's anatomy seems to require a much more substantial angle from top to get both eyes and nose in focus. But whatever...sometimes I inquire to discover how to do and others I inquire how to avoid.

BUT, can you definitively give the focal length and aperture of RLPhotos' three images?

Assuming little or no cropping, I'm guessing the dog was shot with a 85@4.0 or something along those lines, maybe shorter. The ratio of very large nose to tiny eyes means it was a relatively short lens to get that perspective. The apeture had to be smaller to create enough DOF to keep the nose and eyes both in focus since the dog has a long snout. It will be interesting to see what the actual setup was.

Nope all these images are shot @ f/2. The trick is proper technique to get what you want in focus. If you can't tell between f/2.8 and f/2, bah you might as well shoot f/4 lenses because you won't be able to tell the difference either.

Then by all means educate us. Tell us how you were able to so distort the face of the dog and make such a massive nose and such small eyes so close together and yet maintain that DOF. We people you can't tell the difference and don't know proper technique want to know how to create these beady eyes and a huge nose peering thru a fog of blurred fur!

It's called a higher angle in which you tilt the camera down slight to move the plane of focus just enough to get both eyes in focus @ f/2.

Geez, do you guys actually go out and shoot? Its feels like I'm talking to some test chart shooter here.

That doesn't explain the distorted perspective of the huge nose and small close together eyes. To my knowlege, only a relatively short lens and close subject distance creates this "peep hole" type of perspective.

On such a dog, the nose to eyes distance is prabably 6 inches. So I for one would like to know which focal length and subject distance can create the DOF needed to keep both eyes and nose relatively in focus while at the same time skewing the proportions of the dogs face that way.

OK, so now we know you are a democrat.

But I still don't know how you distorted the dogs face proprtions that way and yet kept both his eyes and his nose in relative focus. Hey, I'm just an average snap-shooting hack with more gear than I need, but always willing to learn something new. Maybe just provide the EXIF like everybody else does? That way you won't be troubled with all these questions. If doing that to a dog is your trade secret and you don't want to share the recipe, I suppose I understand.

I haven't seen a quote pile this large since a thread about how awful the 7D is...

The EXIF just exposes "the look" for the self delusional nonsense that it so often is!

A 1.6 crop shot at 135 and f2 @ 100 iso is virtually identical in every respect, including dof and perspective, to a ff image shot from the same place with a 200 at f2.8 and 200iso. The dog shot could be done identically with any of the 70-200 f2.8 lenses. In that instance "the look" is entirely repeatable, maybe there is a good reason my customers don't care how I achieve my results, I know how to achieve them without thinking, or self delusion.

I hope that we don't have to beat another dead horse on the FF vs crop debate on DOF.

Do you have the basic common sense to realize that if I used the macro on the same crop body, the DOF would have been greater than the 135L @ f/2? The macro won't look as good as the 135L on either crop or FF bodies.

Also to mention that you could achieve the same look on FF yet, I pulled it off with a 80$ crop body and a lens half the price of said 70-200II, all thanks to that extra stop of light you continue to reject.

Edit 2: I don't know why this particular image is causing issues for you to understand. The 135L is mearly compressing the dogs nose to make it seem closer to the eyes. Thats where the 135L also shines better than the 100L, 35% more compression.

Maybe I missed it elsewhere but the reason I asked for the EXIF is because nowhere is it stated what lens was used. At least not until your edit.

And as for compression, that was not my question. My question had to do with proportions. How was the nose made to look inordinately large compared to the eyes? Not that that is a bad thing, it actually adds to the shot since most people will interpret that as the dog being closer to the viewers face. I did not however think a 135 would do that much of a peep-hole effect...especially now that I see you did it with a crop body...that makes it a 216 equivalent.